A 2026-os költségvetés-elemzésből
205 million Ft hidden in the wrong budget chapter.
Operating costs of central-government cultural institutions are routed through the NKA's separated fund, making them invisible to the parliamentary scrutiny that should be assessing them on their own terms.
Roughly 21 Ft per resident per year — 205 million Ft that belongs as a transparent line in each institution's own budget chapter, not buried in a separated fund.
Amit látsz — és amit nem
The seen: the central-government cultural institutions receiving the transfer, whose costs appear modest when split across chapters. The unseen: the parliamentary process and citizens, deprived of a clear accounting of what each institution actually costs, because the figure is divided across budget chapters rather than presented whole.
Ellenvetés
"It is only 205 million Ft — a rounding error in a 19 billion Ft fund. Why does the routing matter?"
Válasz
The cut does not defund any institution. It forces the 205 million Ft onto a visible line in the relevant institutional chapter, where it must compete on its merits and where parliamentary scrutiny can assess it. If those operating costs are warranted, they survive the move to transparency; if they are not, they should not have been carried at all. The fiscal problem is not scale — it is that routing any cost through a separated fund hides the true price of the institution concerned.
Share if you think every public institution's cost should appear in full in its own budget line, not distributed across funds to look smaller.
Az elemző értékelése
Kulturális célú központi költségvetési szervek működési kiadásainak támogatása
Az elemző indoklása jelenleg angol nyelven elérhető; magyar fordítás folyamatban.
Indoklás
This line routes a transfer from the NKA to the operating budgets of central-government cultural budgetary institutions. It is a small line, and its analytical problem is one of fiscal transparency rather than scale. The operating costs of a central-government cultural institution belong in that institution's own budget chapter, where they are visible, debated, and accountable on their own terms. Routing 205.2 millió Ft of those costs through an earmarked separated fund obscures the true cost of the institutions concerned and the true scope of the NKA. It is a cross-subsidy that should not exist in this chapter regardless of what one concludes about the institutions themselves: if those operating costs are warranted, they should be carried openly in the relevant institutional chapter; if they are not, they should not be carried at all. Either way they do not belong here. Removing the line from Chapter LXVII does not by itself defund any institution — it forces the cost back onto a transparent line in the appropriate chapter, where it can be assessed on its merits.
Átállási mechanizmus
Single-cycle removal. The 205.2 millió Ft is struck from Chapter LXVII. Where the underlying operating cost is judged warranted, it is re-presented as an explicit line in the budget chapter of the institution concerned in the same budget cycle; where it is not, it lapses. No reliance protection is owed, because the affected parties are central-government bodies whose funding question is simply relocated to where it should have been presented, not removed.
Érintett csoportok
The central-government cultural budgetary institutions currently receiving this transfer, and — through the transparency gain — the parliamentary scrutiny process and taxpayers, who see the true institutional cost rather than a cross-subsidised fragment of it.
Szabad Társadalom Intézet
Támogasd a független elemzéseket
Kutatásunk ingyenes, nyílt és nem szponzorált. Ha hasznosnak találod, segíts fenntartani.